US Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
Way I see it if it's just the next five years we still have a good Chinook F block 1 fleet.
CH53K is being pushed by Lockheed Martin's Sikorsky side but has a lot of issues. It's being pushed mostly because there isn't anything that could if the Army wanted to replace Chinook.
V22 is to small. And none of our allies build choppers bigger than it.
 

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
Couple videos of interest
First meet the XM913.
This is a modified 50mm Bushmaster chain gun for the Bradley replacement
This baby has been trailed for use not just as a IFV gun but as a C-RAM system meaning it could also find a home in the Navy.

And an old friend with a new name the XM914 aka M230LF. The Army and Marines seem to be pushing using it from light vehicles as a semi replacement for the Ma Duce.
Here on a CROWS mounted to a USMC UGV prototype.

So those are of the same event as this in Kingman Az. The Northrop Grumman Bushmaster User Conference. Apparently not everything we saw for the video space it deserves.

Up-Gunned Amphibious Combat Vehicle Fires 40mm Cannon - Destroys Drones, Trucks
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Northrop weapons developers explain that the 40mm cannon can, due to the vehicle’s turret and fire control configuration, easily swap out the 30mm cannon barrel for a 40mm barrel without any technical difficulty or significant alterations.
There are a number of versions of the Bushmaster family of guns. But the main ones are
  • Bushmaster is the M242 of the Bradley IFV. In 25mm
  • Mk44 Bushmaster II in 30x173mm including XM813
  • Bushmaster III in 35mm widely used by CV90 variants.
  • Bushmaster IV in 40x365 not used by anyone I know of. But fires the L70 Bofurs round of Swedish CV90 and South Korean K21.

Right now the Marines are looking at the Bushmaster II XM813 for the ACV. This is an improved Mk44 gun with an inch longer barrel dual recoil system and integral mount. This is the gun found on Stryker Dragoons.
Mk44 was the gun on the EFV.

Now like a video game Bushmaster II and Bushmaster III guns have DLC upgrades if you will. they are Super Fourty 40x225mm for Bushmaster II download (5).jpeg
and Super shot 50x330mm for Bushmaster III. DmrhYeuUwAAQkDh.jpg
These upgrades fire a special type of cartridge. Most high velocity shells look like bullets which have a beer bottle shaped case. The shape is so that the round seats easily but with the right engineering you don't need that shape. This is what the supers are. They are smaller caliber shells necked out so they No longer have that taper. At it's widest the 30x173mm NATO casing is 40mm so you can cram a 40mm shell and powder load of a 35mm shell in it.
So why not just go to Bushmaster IV?
images (23).jpeg because the size of the round. It's fine for the inside of a AC130U but a pain in the ass for an IFV crew. The CV9040 has to be constantly reloaded and keeps a small amount of ready ammo. The South Koreans designed there own gun and autoloader utilized for the L70 ammo. The Marines are looking at an unmanned turret and don't want it penetrating the hull. So it's impractical. Even the 50mm is the same deal. Why not 40CTA like the French and British?
Would need a whole new turret and to licence for US production. A whole new ammo type production and gun system.
For Stryker and ACV it just doesn't seem practical to move up beyond the Bushmaster II envelope, and this upgrade uses existing Bushmaster parts.

What about the bigger one? XM913.
The 35mm Oerlikon cartridge at its widest is 50mm remove the taper and you can cram in a 50mm shell and powder load of a 40mm Bufors.
For the Army OMFV they would be tailored to the larger rounds. It would offer velocity on par with the Bofurs round with a bigger explosive payload. images (15).jpeg
 

Brumby

Major
Way I see it if it's just the next five years we still have a good Chinook F block 1 fleet.
CH53K is being pushed by Lockheed Martin's Sikorsky side but has a lot of issues. It's being pushed mostly because there isn't anything that could if the Army wanted to replace Chinook.
V22 is to small. And none of our allies build choppers bigger than it.

I do not follow vertical lift issues as closely as you do. AFAIK, the issue with the Chinook upgrade is one of strategic pathway and where the services want to put their eggs into. The Pentagon is shifting direction and resources into a future high end fight. In that environment, the service is looking for a platform that delivers speed and distance. The Chinook although has certain capabilities that may not be provided by the next gen platform, it is still a question of fit and then what upgrades are needed to fill that fit.
 
I do not follow vertical lift issues as closely as you do. AFAIK, the issue with the Chinook upgrade is one of strategic pathway and where the services want to put their eggs into. The Pentagon is shifting direction and resources into a future high end fight. In that environment, the service is looking for a platform that delivers speed and distance. The Chinook although has certain capabilities that may not be provided by the next gen platform, it is still a question of fit and then what upgrades are needed to fill that fit.
I guess this is related:
The Army has a plan for China, and it’s bad news for JLTV and the Chinook
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Legacy programs built for the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq are looking less like vital capabilities and more like bill-payers for the Army, as the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
towards a focus on conflict with
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
.

In a small Tuesday roundtable with reporters, Army Secretary Mark Esper fielded a number of questions about the future of the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
and the CH-47 Block II Chinook, a line of inquiry he tied into a recent meeting between Army leadership and officials at U.S.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
.

According to Esper, the Army reached out to INDOPACOM leadership to request a meeting, which eventually happened in Hawaii, in order to discuss how the service is developing capabilities to match up with China.

The idea, Esper said, is to make sure that as INDOPACOM head Adm. Phil Davidson is developing war plans, he “takes into consideration what the Army anticipates bringing to the table.”

Asked which capabilities he sees as vital to the Pacific, Esper identified
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
as “front and center,” which would be used to “hold at bay” Chinese ships. He then added future vertical lift, air and missile defense, and modernized networks as other key areas they briefed INDOPACOM on.

Those capabilities are “something that he needs to know about and he needs to know our thinking where that is in the modernization timeline and everything. So as he thinks about his war plans for the out years, he can calculate those in. and by the same token, it’s an exchange — he can tell us ‘here’s what I’m looking for, here’s what I think I would need,’ and we can adjust our plans as well.”

That discussion happens as the service intends to cut the planned JLTV buy and end procurement of the CH-47 Block II for conventional forces, something Esper said was a direct result of the Army leaning into the National Defense Strategy.

Those two vehicles were designed and procured in “the context of Afghanistan and Iraq,” and hence just not as relevant anymore, Esper said.

“Why the [CH-47s]? Got to carry a heavier payload and fly higher in a hotter climate. What was the heavier payload? JLTV. What drove JLTV? IEDs in Afghanistan and Iraq,” Esper argued. “In many ways they were designed for a different conflict. Doesn’t mean we won’t use them in future conflicts, but now my emphasis has to be on rebuilding my armor, rebuilding my fighting vehicles, having aircraft that can
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, that can shoot down Russian and Chinese drones and missiles and helicopters and fixed-wing aircraft.

“We’re in this transition period and some folks are caught in that transition, and that’s what we’re up against.”

More specifically, Esper said there were “no” plans to re-look at the CH-47 decision, and acknowledged that the JLTV total figure is a bit of a moving target.

“We are certainly cutting the total number” of JLTV procurement, which had previously been set at 49,000, Esper said. “I know that much. But whether it settles out, finals out right here, today, I can’t tell you. In five years, I could maybe have a different number for you.”
 
anyway
US Army postpones demo plans for next-gen unmanned aircraft
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The U.S. Army’s plans to design, build and fly technology demonstrators for a
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
The decision was made so the service can concentrate on future vertical lift efforts for
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, according to the Army’s aviation development director at Combat Capabilities Development Command.

The Army wanted to design a program, much like it did with its
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, to get after a next-generation UAS, but the service “has decided we are not going to pursue that,” Layne Merritt told Defense News in an interview at the Army Aviation Association of America’s annual summit on April 16.

With major efforts underway to build and field a
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
and a
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, “another major acquisition is probably too much for the Army at one time,” he said.

The plan now is to focus on war-gaming efforts to flesh out concepts of advanced teaming between manned and unmanned aircraft, which, Merritt said, will “call out the need for more advanced, high-performance unmanned systems.”

The Army will wrap up the first phase of the next-generation UAS technology demonstrator program already underway, which is meant to produce conceptual designs.

“That is going to really enable us in modeling tools for conceptual design to help answer the questions that we will find out during the war gaming for advanced teaming,” Merritt said, “what kind of actual performance attributes are required. And then, when the Army decides, we will move forward.”

All of the FVL efforts will take place within Army Futures Command, which is tasked with modernization efforts focused on complementing its newly formed doctrine — Multidomain Operations — and the National Defense Strategy.

Meanwhile, the Army is pursuing a f
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
to replace its Shadow systems that are serving in a manned-unmanned teaming role with AH-64E Apache attack helicopters.

The Army selected a
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
-Northrop Grumman team as well as AAI Corporation, a unit of Textron, to provide UAS for platoons to test as candidates for a Shadow replacement.

The service’s original plan for a next-gen UAS was to analyze conceptual designs and make decisions in 2019 about what it would like built and flown. The hope was to fund several efforts, giving companies a chance to build a UAS over an 18- to 24-month period followed by a flight program for FTUAS.

In 2017, when the Army was gearing up for a next-gen UAS technology demonstration, Merritt told Defense News that the service wanted something very different from the current fleet of Shadows and Gray Eagles to perform tactical reconnaissance missions.

The Army has said it wants a runway-independent UAS, for starters. But now the service is thinking even bigger when it comes to advanced teaming, and it sees missions for UAS far beyond tactical reconnaissance, Merritt said.
 
Jan 30, 2019
this is interesting:
"The Navy currently ... has plans to convert “all Aegis destroyers to fully missile defense capable” status, meaning 60 ships will be able to perform the missile defense mission by 2023."
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

so let's wait and see, ...
now inside
Pacific Commander Davidson Asks Congress to Fund ‘Regain the Advantage’ Plan Aimed at China
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

:

  • Accelerate the modernization of the Aegis DDG fleet with solid-state (AN/SPY-6) air search radars, to compete against the advanced threat of hypersonic and ballistic missiles.
[among many other things requested by the Admiral]
 
Yesterday at 7:45 AM
The cost of new intercontinental ballistic missiles is going up. Here’s why the Air Force isn’t concerned.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

I wouldn't read it if I wasn't on the train, will be for 3 plus more hours, LOL
now, on the train back, read Rogoway's bitching:
Updating America's Land-Based Ballistic Missile 'Nuclear Sponge' Is A $100B+ Waste
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 
... The Marines MUX program in the next few years calls for a system that with a few mods fit the Army missions.
March 18
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
The Corps’ future high-tech MUX drone program is not dead ― here’s where it’s at


at pocket money:

"But the MUX isn’t dead ― it got funding, just not a lot. The Marine Corps only requested $21.6 million for it in its fiscal year 2020 budget submission, according to Capt. Christopher Harrison, a Marine spokesman."

etc.
 
Top